somewhat limited by the fact that there is limited hotel capacity in san francisco. and if we had the capacity to accommodate 100% of the demand, the job benefit and the tax benefit for the city would be greater. and with that i'll take any questions that you have, supervisors. >> thank you, mr. eagan. just, again, to summarize here. in terms of the financing. so, 70% is going to be paid for by the expansion district so 30% by the city general fund. it's going to create thousands of jobs in terms of both construction and long-term. i think your job numbers here, were these annual jobs? >> they're annual averages. they're different year to year but that's the average. >> 800 annual jobs in the construction phase. a little over 1200 fern netctionv jobs on an annual basis going forward. and the city's general fund will be technically in the black here, making money off of this? >> yes. >> proposal. and, again, with more commercial paper capability, it would be even more in the black. >> excuse me, supervisor. it's not necessarily true that the general fund will be.

i'm counting the hotel tax as a whole. so, not all the hotel tax goes to the general fund. >> fair enough. i get where you're coming from. okay, thanks. i want to make sure the public was very clear on all those combined benefits. colleagues, do we have any questions for mr. eagan? okay, seeing none, thank you very much. appreciate it. and at this point we'd like to call our last speaker, our budget legislative analyst for their report. >> mr. chair, members of the committee, supervisor kim, we report on pages 17 and 18 that the proposed expansion of moscone would yield annual additional tax revenues to the city as has been indicated of approximately 5.8 million in fiscal year 17, 18, and up to 6.6 million in fiscal year 21 22. * generally estimated, ourest

mass of 24 08 for 37 new one time construction jobs and up to 9 45 ongoing permanent jobs by fiscal year 20 21, 22. provide an estimated 3 82 million in construction expenditures for an additional 3 71,000 square feet. * that's an estimated 1,0 $30 per square foot. * be financed with 82.6 million of available hotel assessment fees subject to separate approval based on the results from the hotel ballots and by resolution of the board of supervisors. and then 5.2 million of available city general if you hadxv of approximately 8% of the total 1 billion 105 million 915 [speaker not understood] project costs. now, that includes, of course, the financing costs of which as the chair has stated 70% would be paid from the hotel assessments.

increase moscone's ongoing maintenance and operating costs about approximately 1.3 million annually to be paid by the city's general fund and result in total 99 6.5 million of cop principal and interest costs. and that would be repaid with an estimated 6 99 million from the moscone expansion district hotel assessments from 2013 through 20 45. and 2 97.3 million of general fund contributions from 2019 through 20 47. * and that ranges from 8.2 million which is currently being paid by the general fund to 10.7 million per year. we also report that the proposed fiscal feasibility is predicated -- and this has been discussed before at committee -- on receiving an estimated 82.6 million of initial available hotel assessment revenues and a conservatively

estimated 6 99.2 million from the moscone expansion district assessments from 2013 through 20 45. * so, that would be the primary funding source or the 70% to proposed moscone expansion project. therefore, we conclude that the proposed moscone expansion project is not fiscally feasible without that additional hotel assessments and, therefore, the board of supervisors should not find that the proposed project is fiscally feasible if the moscone expansion district is not established based on the results of the pending election of the hotels and subsequently approved by resolution by the board of supervisors anticipated to occur on february the fifth, 2013. similarly, the board of supervisors should not approve the accompanied ordinances to authorize the issuance of up to 507.8 million of the

certificates of participation and appropriate the cop proceeds if the moscone expansion district is not approved on february 5th, 2013. however, if the hotel ballots result -- results approve the creation of the proposed moscone expansion district and related assessments, which is subsequently approved by the board of supervisors, then based on the city's fiscal feasibility criteria, the budget and legislative analyst finds that the proposed development could be fiscally feasible under chapter 29 of the city's administrative code. so, our recommendation, supervisors, on page 19, we recommend that you amend the proposed resolution and the two proposed ordinances to add a further resolve clause that the board of supervisors finds that the proposed project is fiscally feasible and responsible subject to the approval of the board of supervisors to create and levy the moscone expansion district

hotel assessments on february the fifth, 2013 when the board of supervisors would consider this matter. and we recommend that you approve the proposed resolution and ordinances as amended and we would be happy to respond to any questions, mr. chair. >> thank you, mr. rose. i would concur with your recommendation there and we'll certainly entertain that moment after public comment. colleague, any questions? okay, thank you very much, mr. rose. thank you to all the speakers. at this time i'd like to open up to public comment. i have a number of speaker cards. ly call them out. if you could line up on the side there. and if there are any other members of the public that would like to speak, please feel free to come forward as well. anthony urbena, craig swan, kevin carol, james lim, and tony north. * colleague [inaudible] i'm with the sheet workers union, local 104, san francisco, california. just to let you know, we are affiliated with the san

francisco building trades council, with the alliance for jobs and sustain able growth and the san francisco labor council. but i am here talking on behalf of the sheet metal worker. we definitely support this project. it's a big project that looks like it's coming down right now. we have about 18% unemployment. although there is a lot of work coming with the city, we're hoping in the next year that is completely gone and all our members are working. like i said, as far as the sheet metal workers 104, we definitely support this project and look forward to getting our members out on that job. >> thank you very much. next speaker, please. hi, good morning, supervisors. i'm tony [speaker not understood], chair of the tid. i am past chair of san francisco travel and hotel council. also general manager of the st. regis hotel and residences. we have 300 employees and our property, which is really directly across the street from moscone center.

under the proposal before you today, the moscone expansion district will support and enable the city to invest important infrastructure project. we're very excited as a community -- hotel community about the project. the funding partnership is almost identical as you've seen today for our tid formed back in 2008. as through the vehicle of the tid, we've been able to have great sales marketing and promotion opportunities to support the city and our increasing occupancy and adrs. we hope you support this proposal for us forming the med and funding the expansion of moscone center. >> quick question for you. from a hotel's perspective, just curious. been involved in the hotel industry for awhile. adr impacts, [speaker not understood], what do you think about a project like this and what will it do for you? i think we're still very optimistic.

we know the statistics have shown we're getting to capacity on occupancy. actually we haven't reached market at the st. regis. we're relatively new in the city. but we think that with the expansion we'll have more opportunity to spread more evenly through the annual calendar. our business, i do think there's more capacity there. and with that kind of compression we can find higher adrs. and most of us are in the position happily at the moment, with increasing adr it helps the flow throughs and helps us be more economically viable. >> okay, thank you. you bet. thank you. >> next speaker, please. good morning. my name is greg swan, i'm general manager of the sherri dan fisherman's wharf. i apologize, i'm getting over laryngitis. i hope you can hear me. [speaker not understood]. at the sherri dan fisherman's wharf that employs 2 80 employees year round.

our section of the city you can consider the fringe area of the city. we're not in the core group of hotel next to moscone center. definitely sees a benefit from moscone center and this proposed expansion. as you know, as you can probably realize, most of our business is concentrated with summer travel season and during weekends when there is a lot of leisure travel. so, we have a lot of unused capacity at fisherman's wharf mid week when convention business really helps boost the occupancy in the city. we as a community down at fisherman's wharf support. this we see there is great up side potential and forming the public/private partnership, we see as very positive as we've seen some great results from the tid that's already been set up. so, we definitely down at the wharf support this project. >> thank you. if you have any questions. >> thanks very much. next speaker. good afternoon, supervisors. my name is kevin carol. i'm the executive director of

the hotel council of san francisco and the council fully supports the proposals you are considering today. that will enable the city to enter into a partnership with the hotel community to invest in the expansion of moscone center. moscone center generates currently hosts 1 million visitors each year and generates more than 1.6 billion in visitor spending. this in turn contributes to millions of dollars to the city general fund and supports thousands of jobs. the proposed expansion will generate even more benefits. tourism dollars generated from moscone center activities ripple into every neighborhood in the city. through rate compression which pushes businesses into neighborhoods where business in the neighborhood when hotels around the convention center are actually full, it pushes business out to other hotels outside the downtown corridor. it also helps with paychecks, local purchases and taxes paid by our visitors that are staying there. for these reasons, the hotel community is proud to partner with the city and we thank you to help grow our economy

through the joint investment opportunity, we will be entering into with the approval of the proposals that are before you here today. * so, we thank you and we thank supervisor kim also for her partnership with us on this. >> thank you very much. next speaker, please. good afternoon, supervisors. my name is james lim, i'medth regional managing director for [speaker not understood] hotels. [speaker not understood] operates 11 hotels in the city and it's spread throughout the neighborhoods as well in downtown san francisco. we support over 800 jobs, local jobs in the city as well. some of our hotels include the [speaker not understood] in japantown, the hotel rex, carlton, laurel lynn at laurel heights, [speaker not understood]. what's wonderful about this initiative is that we know that many of our downtown hotels benefit whenever there is a convention in the city. and what happens is that it creates compression and the business that would otherwise

go to this hotels in the city also are spread throughout the neighborhoods such as the laurel and the kabuki and natoma that normally would not get that demand. but whenever there is a convention in the city, we get that compression and the demand. because of these benefits, you know, we really want to support this as a community as well as our company supports this as well. and we do hope that you support this. thank you. >> thank you very much. next speaker, please. mr. lim, did you forget a key or somebody? thank you, mr. paulson. looks like you're expanding moscone big size ♪ and i looked in from the inside annual budget eyes in your budget eyes in your eyes in your big budget eyes in your [speaker not

understood] eyes oh, oh, oh, [speaker not understood] what a big size high-rise what a big large buy from you guys oh, my, my, it will hit the sky in your budget eyes in your eyes what a big buy i looked in from the budget inside in your budget eyes make jobs for you guys a big buy i can't hide and it's gonna come up big right ride over the years ride oh, i get so tired working so hard, want it better make it come along in your budget eyes. ♪

>> thank you, mr. paulson. i do have one more speaker card from -- i can't tell the first name, monet on the back end. if you go to the other. good morning or good afternoon, supervisors. my name is [speaker not understood] and i live in district 6. and i support this. it's real good. but the thing is we're losing space. it's not too much space down there, is it? i know i walk through there every once in a while. so, are we going to start building up, is that what's going to happen? because all this money, especially on the screen, was kind of confusing to me, give me a little headache. but also, i just -- with the jobs, the construction jobs and i'm quite sure y'all used to me saying this. please don't let the unions put a strangle hold on you because there's more people that aren't able to get into these unions

or know enough about getting into the unions to get some of these construction jobs. there's a lot of jobs within district 6. and we need to give out more resources, whatever, about how to get some of these union jobs because if i'm not mistaken it's 25% of the jobs go to the local people. so, here i am again. and don't forget us. i don't do construction work. i know a lot of people that do do construction work. i do more waiter type stuff when i did the waiter jobs. but the thing is don't forget, don't let the unions put a strangle hold on you. thank you. >> thank you very much. are there any other members of the public that wish to comment on items number 5 through 7? seeing none, public comment is closed. colleagues, these items are before us. let me make first a motion, a few motions to follow the bla recommendation. first of all, a motion to amend

item number 5, the resolution for finding a fiscal feasibility to add a further resolve clause that the board of supervisors will find this project fiscally feasible and responsible subject to the approval of the board of supervisors to create the moscone expansion district next week february 5th, 2013. >> second. >> we have a second for that. we can do that without opposition -- yes. [speaker not understood] district attorney's office. >> this is attorney john givener. if it's possible the board would continue the hearing on february 5th and finally make a decision on the 129tion or later. i would recommend [speaker not understood]. * 12th >> fair enough. strike the date from the further resolve clause we'll do it subject to the approval of the board of supervisors on the moscone expansion district. and i have a second to that. we can do that without opposition. and i'd like to make a motion to add a similar clause on items 6 and 7 authorizing and allocating the certificates of

participation for this project. subject to the approval of the full board of supervisors, whatever date that may be, of the moscone expansion district. and can we do that without opposition? so moved. thank you very much, everyone involved with that. appreciate your time. mr. clerk, can you please call items -- woops. >> i actually had a comment. >> sorry, excuse me. supervisor avalos. >> i didn't realize we had just approved the actual underlying ordinances or resolution. >> we did. do you want to rescind those votes? >> i don't. i'm going to be supportive, but i do want to make some comments about them. everyone come back and have a seat, please. [laughter] >> i just think it's really important to actually acknowledge decisions we make and what the impact is to overall san francisco. i see that we are making a very large investment that's going to have a major impact on

moscone and jobs and the hotel room industry. we're using a lot of general fund, a third of the financing come from the general fund. what we don't see -- we're going to see economic benefits to the city, $180 million in a year in economic benefit for the city itself in terms of revenue, about $13 million supported by ted eagan. and, so, we're seeing an expansion of general fund dollars that is going to come from this. we've made other decisions recently around providing huge benefit and support general fund for america's cup, for twitter, for tax breaks, and generally what the argument is around making these decisions here at the board of supervisors is that we're going to see a huge general fund benefit and that general fund is going to support all of our serve is he across san francisco. i don't believe that's exactly true. i don't see that we actually get all of our neighborhoods to get the exact general fund support and huge increase in general fund dollars that come from decisions we make around

supporting, you know, important parts of our economy and industries in san francisco. a lot of the focus is downtown. i know my district is not necessarily going to get a huge increase in funding for streets, for parks, for public safety. we'll get a little bit of a bump, but we're not going to get a bump that's going to actually be commensurate with decisions we're making here today. because we're going to come back with another, another huge general fund support for our local economy for downtown businesses and it's going to be the other part of what we're gaining in terms of [speaker not understood] increasing going back into the place where people feel that we have to provide the greater support for our local economy and our neighborhoods don't get that kind of commensurate support. i understand that's the reality i work in, we live in. i also thank -- i owe it to my constituents and district 11 that we need to be thinking about how we can be much more deliberate about supporting the needs and focus of neighborhoods outside of the

downtown corridor. i would lump in the sunset and visitacion valley, bayview hunters point and the richmond a all part of that as well. i just think i felt compelled to say that, although i am supporting this -- these items before us today. and i voted on them so unbeknownst to myself. >> supervisor kim. >> thank you. i kind of focused some of my comments on the design of the moscone expansion. i wanted to thank one of our district residents who came up to speak about jobs as well. i want to encourage, you know, when we talk about one of the benefits of our city with this expansion being an increase in jobs to really think about what it means to hire within our neighborhoods and our community. and i know supervisor avalos brought it up as well that of course the benefit can be seen by residents in his neighborhood being higher and seeing the economic benefits of that as well. i'm reminded again because i was at one of our hotels on sixth street, s-r-o hotels on

sixth street two blocks from the moscone convention, talking folks ready to work, in my perception ready to work and have work experience that would be great to bring to the hospitality industry as well just two blocks away from their home. just want to -- hope we can have further dialogue about that. and i know we're working on the outreach plan and putting together a task force in the community. and if we can add that aspect into moscone expansion, you know, i'd be really happy to work on that with you all. thank you. >> thank you, supervisor kim. and i think to be technically correct, we just did approve the amendment. so i'd like to actually make a motion to have the underlying resolution item number 5 and underlying ordinances on 6 and 7. we can do that without opposition, so moved. thank you now at this point, everyone. mr. clerk, can you please call items 8 and 9 together, please? >> item number, item number 8, resolution retroactively approving the feeder agreement between the city and county of san francisco and the bay area rapid transit district for payment for transfer trips, with a term from july 1, 2010, to june 30, 2020.

item number 9, resolution retroactively approving the special transit fare (fast pass) agreement between the city and county of san francisco and the bay area rapid transit district, with a term from january 1, 2010, to june 30, 2014. >> thank you very much. we have mr. urskin here head of our mta. welcome, mr. [speaker not understood]. thank you for being here. >> pleasure to be here. good afternoon, chairperson farrell, supervisors mar [speaker not understood]. happy to bring these agreements forward. these agreements have long history between the two agency. one of them dates back more than 25 years. they were last brought back to this body about a year and a

half ago, just before i started my tenure as the director of the sfmta and right before my counterpart at bart [speaker not understood] started her tenure as the general manager there. at that time there were some concerns raised by the budget and finance committee and sent it to agencies back with some direction in terms of what they wanted to see including bringing both of these agreements together and then some specific provisions or at least guidance. when grace and i first assumed our respective duties in late 2011, we got together and this was one of the first things we talked about because even at that time these agreements were in arrears, what were past expiration. the two agencies were withholding payment from each other and we decided as the new kid on the block that we needed

to get together, take heed of what the message and direction we got was from the board of supervisors and get these agreements done so that we can move forward. we fairly quickly were able to come to agreement in principle on the shape of these two agreements. and while i recognize and appreciate the intent of the board of supervisors to hear these two together, they do have -- they do operate somewhat differently and have different drivers and dynamics that impact them and that's why the shape of them, each of them is a little bit different. but we were able to come to agreement. our staff spent a lot of time in the succeeding months negotiating the details. and after a lot of back and forth, probably late summer or so, we came to final agreement on what we both believe and grace wasn't able to be here today for this meeting. i know i can speak for her

saying both she and i believe these are good, fair and equitable agreements for both agencies. and important in advancing the regional nature of transit in the bay area. we then brought sfmta brought these through the sfmta board and we're now here for your consideration, that those two different items, the feeder agreement which is item 8 and the fast pass agreement which is item 9. there are some -- i want to thank mr. rose and his office for their work in a very comprehensive report. we have a lot of iteration back and forth both [speaker not understood] and bart providing and answering questions. he has made some recommendations which we are ready to accept all of. all of them -- both of them on item 8 as well as the one on item 9. i would just want to say that

with item 9 the idea bringing the cap down to 10.5 million is fine with us and it's fine with bart for the relatively short term of the agreement. i know the different term of the agreement is an issue of concern. it was our goal to have both of these be longer term agreements because it takes a lot of time and energy to renegotiate these. we also both want budget certainty moving forward which we haven't had. it was actually the sfmta's request that we have shorter term for the fast pass agreement while we wait for the bart board of directors to put in place a fair policy similar to the one we have at the sfmta which kind of sets -- which guides future fare increases. so, it was only for that reason that we kept this agreement short at this period of time. our understanding is that our staff is bringing to the bart board for consideration such a policy if that is accepted, and adopted by the bart board. it would be our intent to go

back and negotiate an extension out to this, the same 2020 time period as we have with the feeder agreement. if we are able to do that, then we would need to negotiate -- bart would want to and i think would be reasonable to negotiate a higher cap. but that said, we accept the recommendations of the budget analyst. i know there are some questions and we'd be happy, both my staff and bart staff are here. i think the budget analyst report was comprehensive. i think we briefed all the members of the committee. so, at this point if you want, can bring staff up to walk through the details or we can just open it up for your questions and budget analyst report. >> we could have staff come up and walk through the details if you want. i think all of us have a number of questions on this. so, maybe we can have the detail come first and we can ask whoever is appropriate at that time. >> okay.

>> good morning, supervisors. my name is jason lee and i'm with the sfmta. this morning i'll go over the two agreements comparing side by side the basic provisions of each of them. as maybe you're aware, the fast pass agreement applies to trips taken on bart within san francisco using the muni adult fast pass. >> excuse me, sir. is this part of the document that was delivered to us this morning? >> it's included in the letter that mr. rifkin sent you. this is stand alone in a little bit different format. same content.